1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

C.R.P.No. 310/2020 (EX)

BETWEEN:

T.LOKESH,

S/O M THIMMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

R/AT Y.T.ROAD, TURUVEKERE TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT 3 572 227.

PERMANENT ADDRESS,

R/AT ARALIKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI,

TURUVEKERE TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT 3 572 227.

& PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADV.)

AND:

TOWN SAHAKARA SANGHA,

D.G.ROAD,

TURUVEKERE TOWN,

TUMKUR DISTRICT 3 572 227,

BY ITS PRESENT MANAGER,

SHARATHKUMAR.N.

& RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VARUN.J.PATIL, ADV.)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2020 PASSED IN

Ex.No.22/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

TURUVEKERE, WHEREIN THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE JDR

2

REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY OF EXECUTION PETITION IS

REJECTED

AND

THEREBY

EXECUTION

PETITION

IS

MAINTAINABLE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1.

The Judgment Debtor is challenging the order passed

by the Executing Court by which it has been held that the

execution

petition

filed

by

the

Decree

holder

was

maintainable.

2.

The admitted facts are that the respondent 3 Decree

holder obtained an award at the hands of the Assistant

Registrar who had exercised his power under Section 70 of

the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter

referred to as 8the KCS Act9 for short). The decree holder

thereafter obtained a certificate from the Registrar entitling

him to execute the award before the Civil Judge, Turuvekere.

On the basis of the said certificate an execution petition was

filed before the Civil Judge, Turuvekere seeking to execute

the award passed in favour of the respondent 3 decree

holder.

3

3.

It was the case of the petitioner 3 Judgment Debtor

that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to execute the award

passed by the Assistant Registrar in exercise of his power

under Section 70 of the KCS Act. It was stated that Section

118 of the KCS Act was a complete bar for the Civil Court in

the matter of execution of any award and therefore the

executing Court had no jurisdiction.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent 3 Decree holder on

the other hand submits that Section 101 of the KCS Act

provides for multiple modes of executing an award passed by

the Assistant Registrar and one of the permissible modes was

to obtain a certificate from the Registrar and seek for

recovery as if the award was a decree of the Civil Court. It is

submitted that since a certificate had been obtained, the

execution filed before the Civil Court was maintainable and

the contentions of the petitioner was untenable.

5.

Section 101 of the KCS Act reads as follows:

<101. Execution of orders, etc.- Every order

made by the Registrar under sub-section

of section

69 or under section 99, every decision or award

made under section 71, every order made by the

4

Liquidator under section 74 and every order made

by the Tribunal under sections 105 and 107, and

every order made under section 106 or 108 shall

subject to any other provision of this Act be binding

on the person or co-operative society against

whom the order, decision or award has been

obtained or passed and shall, if not carried out,4

(a) on a certificate signed by the Registrar,

or any person authorized by him in this

behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a civil

court and shall be executed in the same

manner as a decree of such court; or

(b) be executed according to the law and

under the rules for the time being in force

for the recovery of arrears of land

revenue:

Provided that an application for the recovery in

such manner of any sum shall be made,4

(i) to the Deputy Commissioner and shall be

accompanied by a certificate signed by the

Registrar or by any person authorized by

him in this behalf; 1959: KAR. ACT 11]

Co-operative Societies

(ii) within twel